Law and Violence

An economist is to an economy what a physicist is to a Large Hadron Collider. The economy is a tool, a set of devices used to measure a set of objects. Now, in one sense the economy is an illusion- a non-existent structure layered above the world but not part of it, similar to math. However, it must be noted, that all things that exist are, by definition, real- and thus have some sort of reality that exists within this world. Although the vast majority of economic activity doesn't actually exist (or to put it in another sense, exists only when measured, and is in fact data about the world above that is retrieved by measuring the parts of the economy that do exist and extrapolating from there.) it is implied within the frame of what does exist.

Most of the physical basis for the economy is built using spontaneous donations of brain based cpu cycles. This is how the economy can perform extremely complicated calculations, and come up with advanced information without breaking the second law of thermodynamics. However, spontaneous events don't normally just happen in succession in a particular direction, by definition. In order to create spontaneous direction, there are two requirements- the first is Brownian motion, easily satisfied using the human brain, an extremely complicated object that essentially functions as a giant magnifying glass that picks up on low level chaotic activity and aligns large scale structured activity with the generated random seed data. The second requirement is a way to insure that travel in one direction is possible, while travel in the other direction is not. For nano particles, a moving magnetic field can achieve this task. For humans, we use law.

So, the physical basis of humans and their brains is easily identified. Since all known methods of intelligence are chaos based, economics should work fine with most alien species as well. However, law is, in general, yet another virtual construct, so must also be broken down into a physical basis.

Law is not government- it can exist in anarchy. Government is a tool designed to organize violence. Imagine an anarchist society wherein it is illegal for women to wear clothes more revealing than burqas. (IE, women seen outside without burqas will be spontaneously stoned.) One day someone decides that the burqa law is stupid- ideally he will simply stop enforcing it, but it may be that his peers will think badly of him if he doesn't participate in the stonings. Due to its lack of free speech, and inability to accept political activism, the majority of this anarchy's people could oppose the law, and yet the law could still stand unquestioned. With a government, it would be possible to support your positions without taking personal risk, through having intermediaries take the risk onto themselves. In a sense, this is the main purpose of government, to act as a figure head, that officially does everything, so that humans can go about their lives without directly taking hostile action against their neighbors. The important facts following from this, are thus- that law is a consequence of human action and/or inaction, and that government is simply a result of underlying forces. Law is not generated through such a simplistic mechanism as the edicts of one person. Rather, a policeman is able to arrest a thief because people have already classified the policeman and the thief into two different groups. If people did not recognize the authenticity of the police force, the entire organization would collapse within a day. In other words, the physical basis of government is the recognition granted it by its people.

Although all governments are, in essence, the same, the particulars vary widely. The main difference from one government to the next, is the level of recognition supplied to the government. If no recognition is given to the government, then law enforcement, and creation, is totally distributed. As such, law avoidance, and elimination, is also totally distributed. Therefore, violence is totally distributed. The distribution of violence has some major ramifications. For instance, the target of violence is known ahead of time if violence is not distributed. If we have a police force, we know that most shoot outs with law enforcement will involve that force. This doesn't give us much advantage in terms of defeating the criminals- however, it means that the criminals will have to use either a focused power surge that overwhelms deploy-able forces (thus avoiding direct combat due to the results of combat being obvious.) or to sufficiently obscure their actions so as to not be detectable, once more avoiding direct combat. If we have a military, a revolution can end when that military is defeated, so entire cities don't actually have to fight it out in bloodbaths in the streets in order to determine a winner. The military is about as hard to defeat as all the people who support it, (after all, it's just a conglomeration of donations from its supporters.) but destroying it doesn't even kill everyone inside of it. Another important angle is that the government supplies people with a tool with which to do violence. Say some super genius hates nuclear power plants- in an anarchy, he would have to go on a rampage in order to leverage his vast fortunes into usable political power. However, in a democracy he can just become a special interests lobby and ban nuclear power plants in a manner that causes no collateral damage. Violence is much more limited if it is only used to accomplish the goals which the source set out to accomplish, so it is best to keep all violent activity organized. Government is designed to accomplish this feat, by creating targets for militaries to attack, political power accessible to the unscrupulous, and incentives to keep criminals focused on their core objective and avoid causing extraneous damage when they partake in crime.

The other end of the governmental spectrum is a fully recognized government, or one in which all activity is government approved. Now, since we already know that all government is violence, and that all benefits of government emerge from the replacement of certain violent activities with other violent activities, we can instantly see that a fully recognized government can only exist in a fully violent society, and the blatant absurdity of this system stands out. Of course, such a society could exist, and even be profitable as part of a larger world that included less recognized governments (imagine an army-state that acted as mercenaries and was paid by the major powers to prevent military invasions of foreign territory. It could be that such a state could act in lieu of the major states' militaries, and by acting as a deterrent, cause the more ruthless nation states to avoid starting an arms race, causing one standing military to exist, rather than requiring the maintenance of several.) However, as a basis for civilization as a whole, violence is not viable.

So how much recognition should we give our governments? The answer is, this scales to how violent we wish to be. And so, it becomes important to actually explore just what violence is- Violence is the set of all activities that decrease the total value of the universe, from the perspective of any existing viewer. Looking at it this way it at first seems impossible to partake in non-violent activities. Technically, it IS impossible to partake in non-violent activity, but we can change degrees of violence- ie we can reduce the overlay between existing activity and violent activity. This can be accomplished in two manners. The first is obvious- achieve desired ends using methods that involve less violence. If it is equally difficult for a person to get his food by raising it himself or by stealing it, society can easily convince him to raise it himself, which causes overall civilization to flourish. The second method is to aggregate activities. For instance, imagine a person who wants bread, and has an infinite supply of fish. He is a master of misdirection and disguise, so from his perspective stealing bread is free. If he is completely selfish we can expect him to steal bread- but if we look at the situation closely we realize that having an infinite supply of fish, he can still act in a completely selfish manner while leaving fish to replace all the bread he steals. Now, he can achieve the same goals, but does so in a much less violent manner.

Most people would quickly claim that they would support a completely non-violent society. Since we already know that this is absurd, the second level we can jump to is a minimally violent society. This makes a lot more sense but introduces an extremely complicated word into the mix- "minimally" doesn't actually mean anything on its own. The best answer is that we want to be violent enough that our values succeed and flourish. We are not willing to allow others to stand in a position of violence to our core principles, and must be violent to the extent necessary to eliminate such groups. Since the world is composed entirely of accidents, inevitabilities, and the things people do, the course of history is fatalistic. As such, it is a natural objective to create a framework through which people can take action, and then discover the results of their actions. In other words, a framework wherein depending on the nature of undiscovered accidents or misunderstood inevitabilities, the probability of victory or defeat will not be hampered, but, regardless of who wins or loses, at the point at which that data becomes accessible, to a maximum extent, all the things that people do should result in support for the winner. Thus the ideal violent activity is the collection of power. As large a percent of violence as possible should be used to become more powerful.

In turn, this means that we need to avoid people committing violence to become more secure, given that the difficulty of the objectives are equivalent. (note that if someone profits from a method of violence in a manner that lacks a nearly equal opportunity cost, it is by nature impossible for society to stop him from using that method. Society is not godlike, it is only capable of creating a minor weight formed from sanction that can be added where chosen. The extreme impact of society emerges based on the fact that the majority of objectives can be approached by a near infinite amount of angles, a multitude of which will be nearly equal in cost.) Security, by its nature, forces results into the present. IE, security causes the accidents and inevitabilities of the future to occur all at once. This means the loser cannot be phased out- he will necessarily have to be blotted out in a bloody war. Therefore, in an ideal society, the members will peaceably coexist regardless of how opposite their viewpoints, and engage each-other on a battlefield composed of geometric effects such as arguments and reproduction, while building up a wealth of capital that can be exploited both by the current generation and by those deep in the future.

However, we are not in an ideal society, and our government must not just account for how violent we wish to be, but also for how violent idiots who can't understand what we're telling them want to be. Although our instincts may make us want to just smash such groups, the fact of the matter is that that would be trying to advance our agenda through becoming more secure. Of course, if they insist on acting in such a manner that we cannot ignore them (for instance, by trying to secure their values by shutting down research into fields that scare them, but that we find necessary.) we must take direct action- but failing that, we need to integrate them into some sort of system. Fortunately, after we step back a bit, we realize that people are, on the whole, very congenial towards focusing on power, and can normally be discouraged from the opposite with relative ease.

This is because of law. The physical basis for law is a set of mental routines within the brain's source code. Namely, the brain includes two important functions- Save and load. The brain saves data about its circumstances and environment, keeping track of its current state and its past state. When the current state falls below any given past state, the brain automatically activates its load routines. The load routines are a set of calculations that describe the inevitabilities required reach the previous state, which are then used so as to take the actions required if those inevitabilities exist. These routines serve as the magnetic field that sits eternally just behind civilization, transferring heat into information. Through such a simple program, as long as sufficient energy in inserted, indefinite amounts of information can be created from the energy. As such, law is a compilation of information that exists due to a incredibly vast sea of calculations using Brownian logic gates, that cannot dissipate, because every time it weakens, we load to a state wherein it was stronger. So why is it that law is always good? The answer is simple- by definition. Law is the sum total of the calculations we performed moving from lower states to higher states.
Due to the benefits conferred in a society wherein people build up large sums of wealth in order to accomplish their purposes, our calculations repeatedly advance such a society, and thus, said society is naturally accepted over time.

In sum, government should expand until it has achieved a maximum amount of conflict resolution and no further. So, that said, what are some practical implications thereof? First off, if there is no conflict, then there is no need for government intervention. This immediately debases all attempts to improve the overall economy through governmental economic activity. It also debases all hostile activity deployed against foreign nations that does not address hostilities existing within those nations. Furthermore, given equal opportunity costs, and giving preference to power, we also know that it is better to become stronger than to prevent foreigners from becoming stronger. This becomes an even easier decision when we realize that hostilities between any two factions gives a relative advantage to all third parties, so if there are any enemies not targeted by your hostilities, you may well be putting yourself in a worse position than you started in, even after a complete and easy victory. It's also unnecessary to ensure that people properly seek their own self interest. This is because people will advance their values naturally, so the very idea of internal conflict is silly. Understand that advancing one's values isn't just about succeeding in life, or becoming rich, or any other such nonsense. All it requires is that your inherent nature align with morality. As an extension, any activity that includes only members that support the activity need not be meddled with. In general, the negative implications of the nature of government, are that governments should not expand violence into fields that would otherwise have been non-violent.

So what are some violent activities that government should be in control of? The most obvious examples are things like regulating the activities of thieves, lobbyists, rapists, lawyers, politicians, and murderers. However, the secret, and most important field of regulation is known as homesteading, which is the act of seizing resources that are not currently owned and causing them to be owned. IE, of turning unclaimed resources into claimed resources. This is very much an inherently violent act. Where once there was oil in the ground that anyone could partake of freely, now there are guns that will shoot you if you seek to make use of the oil. Method A (avoiding violent activities) is not a viable solution to this act of violence (for the obvious reason that simply leaving the oil in the ground is blatantly idiotic.) As such, Method B (combining the violence with an opposite activity that causes the overall action to be non-violent) is the best approach. One important method of achieving Method B is simple- taxes. However, another method is to limit the group of people eligible for the benefits of the homesteading to a set of people who will have the lowest overall levels of violence. In other words, to have a group of people who have expanded rights and entitlements which distributes the country's natural wealth to them- and perhaps a special title to go with these privileges. (This special title being citizen.) However, since the special privileged class is now strictly superior to their unprivileged rivals, it becomes reasonable to ensure that your country is composed with as large a percentage of special privileged class as possible (current experiments indicate a percentage of 100% is the maximum, not including tourists and temporary occupants located for non-resource base related purposes (such as studying in a more centralized college)) In other words, all immigrants seek to undermine our ability to generate power, in order to expand their own power. Since we are better aligned with our values than foreigners, we would prefer that we have a greater portion of this world's available wealth. It is a natural and reasonable violent activity to homestead as much as possible, and to prefer power for ourselves over power held by neighbors. After all, we ARE in a violent conflict over the end nature of life, the universe, and everything- the war may be engaged using economics and literature, but the conflict is very real and the stakes are huge. Securing ourselves against others claiming resources is a malinvestment, but becoming more powerful individually, even if the total power level of humanity is hampered as an opportunity cost, (note that, in reality, security IS good. It's just not how law is promoted, not how economics functions and not what government should focus on. As such increasing our relative power (even if we don't increase our absolute power) is actually a good thing, in so far as other humans are the greatest threats to our values.) is perfectly reasonable.

Another important role of government is this, that at times, a natural end loser of history will become inevitable given that the loser does not take action to prevent this. In general this action will consist of immediate hostilities against another group (note that such hostilities don't have to be riots, or warfare. Much more likely, it will consist of villainization, lobbying and other "acceptable" but no less dangerous, attacks.), generally a group that will, even if it "wins" the conflict, also become an inevitable loser at the end of the conflict, due to the competitive advantage attained by third parties. Thus it is up to government to insure that nature doesn't take its course, and to insure that nobody loses without having a fair capacity to make his arguments and collect resources. In other words, government must insure that all major factions capable of enacting violence on those that the government services are as best as possible, discouraged from doing so. Redistributing resources from the group that will be attacked, to the group that would implement the attack, is not just doing a favor to the faction that the wealth is given to. It also serves the faction that the wealth is taken away from. To understand, imagine a game of Risk. One of the players has conquered all of Asia, and, if ignored he will obviously win. Ordinarily the players on his borders would all instantly attack him, suffering major losses to themselves, but obliterating the Asian player. In turn the player not involved (South America) would have a huge advantage and probably turn out as the winner of the game. As the position stands, the Asian player will definitely lose, and everyone but the South American player is at a major disadvantage. However, if the Asian player is trustworthy and is allowed to talk, he might be able to salvage his position, say by agreeing to engage in unreasonable battles every turn, chosen in such a manner that his strength doesn't grow faster than anyone else and no-one profits or is hurt from his actions in a relative sense. Now the board is rebalanced such that everyone has an about equal shot at winning again. Besides South America, everyone is better off. (Note that the reason we, in a utilitarian sense, desire to stall the final battle, is that wealth naturally expands itself. By their nature, apocalypses are expensive, so when armageddon occurs, we lose all the future capital we would have gotten by investing the wealth that ends up consumed in fire and ice. Needless to say, with higher technology and a more advanced civilization, it will be easier to clean up the seas that have turned to blood, and to replace any moons that end up being devoured.)
An easy way to accomplish this is to make enough resources available that victory is still possible even under most worst case scenarios. That way, no matter how badly off a group is, it has food, knowledge and communications, so it can still build better arguments for its positions, which may in turn allow it to win in the far future, when present environments have shifted, and the keys to wealth production have changed hands.

Finally, I should address some common counter arguments, that actually counter the wrong premises and thus aren't actually related to the argument-

A- The free market is by definition a set of calculations done using unviolent methods. The vast majority (if not all) of big businesses are connected to the government. Microsoft makes its vast fortunes by exploiting copyright laws. (Yes, creating something that only has value because it is standardized, then using the standardization in order to level a tax on all computers used for standard activities is MOST DEFINITELY an exploit. A standard was inevitable from the start, Microsoft only produces wealth in so far as it gives us a high quality standard in an early timeframe. That's not saying that Microsoft doesn't give us anything (Windows 7 is actually a very good product) but that by siphoning too much of the economy to Microsoft, we have malinvested too heavily into creating good operating systems, paying an invisible opportunity cost distributed across all other fields.) The free market has already tried to kill GM several times. Practically all banks receive regular doses of free government cash... the list goes on, but in short, the road to being a big business is almost always through leveraging government support.

B- America's government meddles in medicine MORE than most of the rest of the 1st world. Our spending is slighty above average, our regulations on who can be a doctor, who can run a hospital, etc. is highly above average, and our regulations involving what you can and cannot sell is WAY above average (the FDA is famously one of THE hardest governmental regulatory agencies to get drugs and operational methods through. European countries often have had life saving drugs with no drawbacks for ten years before those drugs are legal in America. In turn, this forces American hospitals to give patients either riskier or more expensive treatment.) The entire debate over whether we should provide socialist or capitalist medical treatment is bogus, much like the rest of the Republican party.

Anarchy

What defines an anarchy? It could be called an environment in which all rights are granted. When people think of such a list of rights, they normally notice immediately such rights as the right to murder or steal, however, these are not actually threats to anarchy and are balanced by the right to self defense and the right to vengeance. The one right that particularly threatens anarchy on a fundamental basis, is the right to form a government, and thus, the right to restrict rights. As such, an environment in which all people have all rights, is, by its nature a low entropy state.

So, how else can one define an anarchy? The other definition that comes up is simpler: any populace lacking a government. It is theoretically possible, that such a populace could be raised with principles designed to protect themselves and their anarchy. Thieves could be dealt with more easily without trials and courts to protect them, and murderers would be kept in line by the heavily armed population. Giant armies would emerge from out of the population to strike down threatening governments whether foreign or domestic. Such a society could generate law without government, and maintain all the trappings of civilization. However, looking at such a society one must realize that it's just a system, albeit a weird one. In such an anarchy, it is possible that anyone who doesn't conform to societal norms will be killed on the spot, or that giant witch hunts will be undertaken by a paranoid populace. IE, an anarchy CAN BE a tyranny. Most governments, (or any other system of organization of a populace.) try to justify themselves with some form of divine righteousness. Once you realize that an anarchy can be tailored to build any societal model, it becomes a system like any other, acceptable only upon the merits of its abilities.

So, given that you make an anarchy, what is different from another government, the same in respects separate from systematical factors? First off, in an anarchy, activities must be popular- basically, passing a "bill" in an anarchy, is equivalent to passing a constitutional amendment in a democracy. Such changes to "law" would have no official ceremony- the nation would just evolve over time. What's most important here is- war. An anarchy would be capable of starting a war, only after a rather extreme event managed to raise extreme support. The nature of this event, is, dynamic, in that it depends on what the populace thinks of as an act of war. In this way, anarchy resembles democracy, but requires generally bigger events than an equivalent democracy. However, just starting a war isn't enough in anarchy. After all, in an anarchy, the army can, literally, just pack up and leave at any time. As such, for an anarchy to engage in war, the war must be popular throughout. This leads to a fork in how an anarchy operates-
In a military anarchy, an army would always exist, and invading and conquering foreign nations would be seen as the norm. Alternatively the anarchy could form a army only when invaded, defending itself from foreigners but rarely fighting frivolously. In-between systems are too complicated, and thus, difficult to manage in an anarchy.

One should not make the mistake that an anarchy would not have leaders. In any system, certain people stand out, and are listened to. While anarchist leaders would not dare judge criminals directly, or issue ultimatums (for fear of a anti-government crowd labeling them a start up government, and executing them on the spot.) national policy would be very dependent on these people. Given that there is no system of turnover, it is likely that these people would be very established, and would wield their power for life (though many would fade in and out of the spotlight in the flow of time.)

To maintain an anarchy, certain factors are necessary, chief amongst them- homogeneity. Amongst multiple cultures, a clash is inevitable, as well as a power struggle. This power struggle is almost certain to include a government. Therefore, either the anarchists must ethnic cleanse the opposition, or the nation ceases to be an anarchy. What is most interesting, is that an anarchy must thence have strict border control, especially assuming its neighbors are all living under, and supporters of, governments. Even anarchist neighbors could be living under a vastly different anarchy, and would therefore, start enforcing vastly different laws. Given that in an anarchy just living in the country makes you a full citizen capable of taking the laws into your own hand, it is imperative that immigration be controlled, lest your country dissipate.

Evolution and Desire

What does a rock desire? What is it thinking? A standard answer to this would be to say "nothing". That it is simply a physical manifestation of the laws governing our environment. However, a rock is, in fact, the end result of incredibly complicated interactions, the very ability to sit still becomes incredible when one looks at quark physics. And yet it is so- that small underlying probabilities on a low level lead to stable realities on upper levels. In this manner rocks are identical to humans- that it is a manifestation of an underlying yearning, that SOMETHING WANTED SOMETHING. To declare anything else requires an arbitrary line, wherein at one point something is alive and thinking but at an arbitrarily similar point it isn't. Like trying to draw lines with RNA on one side and viruses on the other. The very definitions of thought and life only work as properties, similar to heat or velocity. An absolute zero life reality would have to have zero information content.

That said, humans are obviously more alive than rocks are. So are algae and spaghetti. The question then arises as to what delineates higher levels of life from lower levels of life. A standard snap reply would be "intellect". A somewhat more advanced reply would be "morality". Since we are currently just playing games with the English language (which, like math, is not actually the basis of the universe around us, no matter how much we wish it were.) both answers are correct, as is any other answer. However, amongst those correct answers there is one that I would point out as a very interesting angle from which to view the world- "desire". While quarks have hardly any desires and just run around as they please, electrons insist on finding protons. DNA wishes to reproduce, which is far beyond simple magnetism, whilst fungi wish to grow. The definition is fully scalable and works for any interaction. What makes a human more alive than a cow? The fact that the human wants to build houses, share experiences and make inventions, while the cow just wants eat grass and lay down facing power lines. If the cattle just had the desire to improve their environment they could be human. This works for IQ as well- in that a stupid thug merely wants his next fix, whereas if he wanted to carefully annotate the exact actions of a slowly titrated chemical he would in fact BE a brilliant scientist. Note China, who had gunpowder, all the IQ they could ask for, but just didn't WANT to shoot anybody. It was lack of lifeforce, not calculation capacity that held them back. While it might be argued that the Chinese really DID want to shoot people but just didn't think of it, this argument doesn't work, once we realize that monkeys and mocking birds want to imitate the actions of those around them, but do not have any higher desires. The desire to replicate the actions of others is not equivalent to a desire to take independent action.

IE- to be a higher life form, all that is necessary is to desire the correct things. However, by applying previous knowledge of the definitions leading here, desires are not customizable (IE a thug really can't just want to goto college and memorize the periodic table.) and have a physical basis. The more interesting implications don't revolve around how to reach a level of life but in what a higher level of life IS. We note already the line of desire from a quark to a human, but it is important to note the trends inherent in these goals- That a quark, desiring to be in its correct triplet has an infinitely easier objective than any human objective- IE a more obtainable objective. Whilst our objectives are complicated and hard to achieve, a quark can just teleport to its objective. Rocks have a far higher chance of sitting still than DNA does of replicating, and a cow is more likely to eat the grass in front of it than the chance that a human will put a house on that grass. IE, the goals of higher lifeforms are perpetually less realistic than those of lower lifeforms. In fact, they are not only more difficult, but due to growing pattern overlaps, the goals of higher lifeforms steadily become mutually exclusive. Whilst the rocks can live in perfect harmony, humans must always be in conflict, whether through war, or through various advertisements drawing customers away from one product and to another.

If we move on to yet higher lifeforms, we find angels and demons, beings aspiring to ultimate power. (Demons through force-ably integrating all reality with their objective, and angels through convincing all reality to integrate. Either way the end result is the same.) So what happens if one such being achieves its objective and becomes omnipotent? It must then become a god. For that is the driving force of evolution, that once a lifeform has achieved its desire in fullness, the next frame MUST include a higher lifeform. This is because, the universe is information. It is a slide-show OF information. In order to change slides, the information contained MUST change. The next slide IS the difference in information. There are of course two other possibilities, ones that always exist- A- the projector is turned off, and the slide-show ends and B- a new slidereel is loaded, and the show is fundamentally changed.

However, our show is evolution, and our next slide will always contain a higher lifeform. So then, what does a god desire? What does the demon who has slain all opposition now want? What does the angel who has rallied all desire to one point want? The answer relates to the same thing that every form of life has always attempted- to replicate. A god however, being omnipotent, cannot simply create another god. Why? Because, being omnipotent, everything within the universe is simply an extension of himself. Creating an exact copy of himself would merely cause him to become more massive. To create a new god, it becomes necessary to reproduce not only the form, but the core nature that IS a god, IE the quality of understanding that the god has obtained- but this understanding must be formed entirely independently of the god's original experience, lest reproduction falter, and the infant be rendered simply an additional limb. It is therefore a god's duty, nay, nature, to create a new universe. Any lesser desire, and the supposed god is instead just a extremely powerful demon. What lies beyond godhood then? Is evolution an indefinite progression?

Logic and Facts

To establish the truth, there are 3 essential steps. First- is the argument logically valid? This can be broken down into the questions of- Are the premises required contradictory?
(note that a contradictory statement is not invalid- it is meaningless. If (contradiction) then Y is ALWAYS true. It is, as such, incapable of providing input. IE, a test that always comes up positive is no better than simply declaring the statement true without any measurement. IE in any designation of C->Y is equivalent to 0=0. This principle ignores scale- it's like multiplying a final product by 0, all information is lost if any link is invalid. It should be noted, that autorepair routines are a valuable asset, in that YOU can yourself, fix a target argument such that it becomes a valid argument. Even the best scientists often make mistakes especially in long and convoluted math. Sometimes these mistakes are easily fixed, and the argument does not need to be sent back to its source for maintenance.)

Are all statement transformations done such that they lead to equivalent results?
(IE, take the statements of X->Y and ~X (not X)->~Y. These are NOT equivalent. IE, assume X is true if the tested variable is a hawk, and Y is true if the variable is a bird. In all cases wherein X is true, so is Y. However, a dove is not a hawk, but it is a bird. Any argument wherein we start with the premise of X->Y and derive a statement such as ~X->~Y is logically invalid. This is, once again, due to the fact that given any derivative from which the original truth table is changed, I can obtain any result from any premise. As such, the truth of the premises has no relation to the truth of the final statement.)

Once these routines are complete the second step is- Is the statement mathematically valid?
This is when outside information is first factored into the issue. Each premise is measured against additional known information. The validity of the premises is based on how much outside information would have to be rendered false for the the premise to be declared true, vs how much outside information would have to be rendered false for the premise to be declared false. A strength level is assigned to each premise. Note the difference between a premise and a variable. IE "If cattle exist the so does the sun god." is a premise. The existence of cattle and the existence of the sun god are both variables. The RELATION is the premise. Since there are many scenarios that include cattle but not a sun god, I can call this premise into question. It should be noted, that it is impossible to render such a premise impossible (any such design would already be logically invalid.) but it is possible to assign probabilities to each premise. As some premises drop below a certain threshold I can furthermore declare the effort involved with further exploration to be not worth the benefits derived thereof, thus setting a virtual 0 to the premises strength.

Finally, the issue turns to the variables themselves. It should be noted that in many arguments, rendering one or more variables false will not destroy the argument. For instance- X or Y->Z. Even if Y is false Z (the variable I care most about) is still true, given that X is true. That said, it becomes necessary to, with a similar approach as before, judge the strength of each variable. It can be stated that the probability that Z is proven (be careful not to dismiss Z just because a false proof is given. IE "given that oil continues to be used to generate electricity, then we will be nuked. Oil will continue to be used to generate electricity, so we must prepare for a nuclear attack with a nuclear defense shield." Note that the starting premise is weak (that using oil will necessarily lead to getting nuked) but the conclusion is not necessarily a bad idea. At least, many better arguments could be given for that same conclusion.) , given a statement such as X or Y->Z is equal to- The probability of the premises being accurate multiplied by the probability that any set of variables that leads to Z is accurate.

So, this leads to the issue, of what tools to use to asses the probability of the premises and variables. The first, and most obvious is direct input. For instance, one does not need expert advice to know that the sky often displays a blue color. Any variable that requires the sky to lack its color in order to function requires the complete dismissal of all input throughout your entire life, and thus becomes abstractly improbable. This method is, however, limited. Especially when dealing with variables. Oftentimes, events can avoid contradicting personal experience even if you know a good deal about a subject. IE, say there was a statistic that said 2% of females aged 16-28 in town X get raped every year. As a resident female who lived her entire life in town X and hasn't been raped, you must realize that according to the statistic provided, this scenario has a nearly 77% chance to occur. As such, the personal experience of living in town X and not getting raped is nearly worthless in terms of judging the issue.
This is when you turn to aggregate data. So long as the collection method is valid and the source is trustworthy, statistics are the best and only way to answer questions upon which you lack data. Any amount of individual data points can be averted by declaring them a coincidence. However, by aggregating them, they become much stronger- facts are like sticks. Breaking one is always easy, but breaking them all at once is astronomically harder.

Sometimes, though, you will inevitably run across issues which fall into one of two categories- the statistics behind the premises are so astronomically convoluted that you can't understand what they mean or the data is so lacking that it's impossible to use a amalgamated mass. This is when the opinions of outside analysts become important. IE, a biologist can declare that his data indicates a coming epidemic, that requires immediate action to avert. The reasons for his declaration can easily be absurdly arcane, but if the other biologists around him agree that his data means what he thinks it means, and if he is a person who has successfully predicted 3 similar events, his data is probably valid. Alternatively, say a murder occurred and the murderer is confirmed to have destroyed all video evidence and left no dna evidence. However, he didn't know that his target's child was hiding in the closet and saw the entire thing, leaving a good enough testimony to identify him from amongst all the people who could physically have achieved the act. One must judge if the source would want to mislead you, or have some sort of vendetta against the presumed murderer, or if it is more like that the child is simply telling the truth. Oftentimes, these questions are actually very easy to make, but sometimes a very confusing situation arises- one in which 2 valid sources come to opposite conclusions. Since this method is a step within the process of judging argument validity, presuming that any given argument has not already been judged true or false, it WILL inevitably be reached. (assuming data exists. Even so, when faced with a unsolvable problem, people tend to pull in their friends, coworkers, etc. to help them come to a conclusion.) As such all problems are supported by one group and opposed by another, and the constituent strength of the groups supporting and opposing the argument must also be factored in. Note that group size is of minimal importance compared to other factors. IE, 10 doctors telling me that my symptoms are caused by disease X is more meaningful than 10000 non-doctors saying the same thing. Although popular opinion can be used as an indicator, it is often caused by such things as "going with the flow" or by the conclusion simply being the most obvious, even though anyone who really knows what he's talking about knows 10 proofs that make the conclusion false. (Often, 1 way hash arguments, wherein the true argument is thoroughly proven, but the proof is so long/difficult, that the average person cannot follow it, either due to willpower+available time or simple intellect failure. Note that lack of will to follow an argument is not necessarily a bad thing, and is in fact a mathematical necessity. By definition, listening to one argument requires that you are not listening to another. If you just start listening to every available argument, you will soon find that there are STILL far more that you haven't listened to.)

If, Then, Else

So, we've decided that an ailing economy is solved by producing jobs, and demand. This is achieved via government spending. So, given that this procedure works, what else must be true?

Firstly, that people in their latent state are not productive. IE, that rich people will not use their wealth in a progressive manner, and that poor people will become more productive once given a job. (The issue of poor people facing starvation or simple deprivation could easily be solved by immigration control and charity. It is assumed that we cannot afford charity for the entire world, so there must be limits to who can get this charity.) The jobs given to the poor are NOT currently productive. Producing a single job is far more expensive than giving a single person enough money to sustain a middle class living. IE, any job given to the poor must be judged as an investment, not a product.

So, this splits current economics into two questions- is 'idle' spending more effective than forced spending and does a person, after working for a certain period become an effective member of the economy? Current assumptions say that upon such a time as a person runs out of obvious beneficial activities to achieve he will enter into an idle state and cease partaking in useful activities. The answer to this syndrome is thence to force economic advantage gain for less useful activities visible to the government but not the economy. In theory these activities can be intuitively seen easily, but due to the lack of financing for those who would benefit, they are invisible to the economy. So, we must look then at the nature of the economy's vision- IE what makes an activity visible to the economy vs what hides such an activity. Simply, an economy repeatedly distributes money back to those who produce the greatest amounts of wealth. A miner gathers ore. The ore is sent to a refinery and eventually becomes steel. The steel is sent to a car factory. The Car worker trades his money for a house, that was built from wood gathered by a lumberjack supporting all the people up the line. Presumably the workers demand as much as they can get and thus each receives the maximum amount that a company can pay them and still make a profit (IE the wealth they produce is directly returned to the worker. Note that this doesn't really happen, because some people are better at fraud than others, so some workers make way more than they're worth through clever trickery, most of it legal. Of course the reverse is also true, and plenty of workers are screwed by clever companies. Such activity should however, be viewed merely as corruption, and should be stomped out where plausible.) Some people are not in the direct line of work, for instance, venture capitalists. However, they are in the same positions as the workers, in that the only way to start a car factory is for someone to judge that a car factory needs to be opened even though there is no proof, and for him to provide the capital. This is a very difficult job that only a few people can do, and those who do it well are provided large amounts of wealth due to their importance to the economy. From an economic perspective there is little difference between company/customer and employee/company. When A provides a service B responds by returning wealth.

So, what's curious is this- what happens when the worker at the car factory is replaced by a computer, and where thousands of factory workers used to be paid, instead a couple hundred engineers handle everything. The factory worker can no longer produce a surplus of wealth, and thus becomes invisible to the economy-(note also a equivalent scenario: that a lot of people move to cities creating a large demand for houses. For a period, any uneducated bum can be a valuable economic resource due to the necessity of houses and lack of alternatives. However, as the demand decreases the incentive to employ the bums disperses until such a time as it is no longer profitable.) IE the natural response of the economy is to kill him off. (remember that our objective is to improve the economy. Such issues as starving unemployed persons can be handled by charity instead of by handing out jobs.) It can be argued that the worker will simply learn a new skill and do something useful elsewhere, but this merely delays the issue. IE Given that the variables necessary for production change, the persona of the worker base must also change. Given that said variables shrink to a smaller field (for instance, those with a higher IQ, or greater amount of experience) people who were previously productive members of the economy will be dismissed from the economy.

By current economic standards, this method of dismissal is a disastrous inevitability of any unplanned market. This process creates depressions. What must be asked then, is what is a depression? As part of a natural business cycle, it is formed when people finish getting what they want. Once people can drive around for free, and everyone has a house the workers get fired and the companies go out of business. IE a depression does not involve the disappearance of wealth. Indeed, wealth is freed up during a depression. (note that yes investors will be screwed by a depression, but that's because they're not doing their job right. Investors are paid to tell us if a economic activity will be useful in the future, and if their predictions are wrong they will be fired.) So where does the money go?

Here is where the very rich come in. The money ceases to be in an active state and enters an idle state. Note that money, if not spent translates into deflated prices. IE no matter how rich you are, to be noted by the economy you must partake in economic activities. IE idle money is not money that is not spent. It is money that is translated into activities that produce no direct economic benefits. This can be classified into two fields- investments and luxuries. Investments are to be defined as anything that may, in the future give a profitable return. Luxuries are activities that in all probability will not return a profit. As such, the entirety of modern Keynesian economics henges on whether the money will be placed in investments superior to employing workers or if the money will be wasted on luxuries during a depression.

Or, another way of putting it is this- do the very rich become richer or poorer at the end of a business cycle? IE after the economy recovers, do the very rich also recover? If the very rich are reduced in wealth every cycle then it can be assumed that they spent their assets on luxuries or poor investments during the depression. If however, the rich become richer, then it can be assumed that they merely turned to more far sighted programs.

However, the business cycle has, throughout history, been increasing the economy. The nobility was in the 1500s-1700s extremely productive. They set up the industrial revolution. Simply put, business cycles are too frequent for a upper class to remain on top indefinitely without responding profitably too them. Upper class individuals with way more wealth than they need do not tend to fritter it away in parties. They either hold onto it (thus not getting in the way of the rest of the economy) or take extremely far sighted actions to increase their wealth. This is why they are so rich. IE, the problem addressed by current economics (a loss of demand, and thus no way to find useful ways to spend money.) is incorrect. What needs to be addressed is this- that the economy will not always find everyone in it useful, not even everyone who has been useful in the past. Rather than giving these people jobs, which provide the people only a small amount of money compared to how much is spent to produce the jobs, they should be given their wages without the work involved. Then the saved money can be turned to farsighted goals. (such as scientific research, or power plants that can produce cheaper electricity (note that demand for electricity can be fully met, but if the electricity can be produced cheaper, then people who could not previously afford any electricity will start buying whilst those who could afford what they really wanted can buy even more, even if all they do with it is leave the lights on while they're out. IE demand will scale to supply.)

One should ask, what makes these far sighted goals so bright that they outshine nearsighted goals? The answer is simply that they are more economically viable. There's no reason to continue turning trees into houses when no one will trade any resources for the house. However lesser demands, such as my demand for a quantum computer can still be addressed. It's not that these people stop providing products- it's that they start providing products that can't be immediately delivered. These include everything from free food and electricity to spaceflights. A depression starts when my demand for a quantum computer outstrips your demand for a bigger house. It's that simple. Competition for limited resources.

So we ask, do I have a right to a quantum computer when you still want a house? The answer there is this- that we are only different than other species because of our scientific progress. We are the only species that demands things that we can't get. A wolf never demands a gun, and thus is still stuck hunting with fangs. Sure, if a wolf pack hunkered down and started producing more advanced weapons, many wolves would suffer or even starve while the pack worked out its more effective weapon. However, do we really wish we had acted like the wolves way back when, or do we thank the sacrifices of our ancestors? That said, are we really so selfish, that we wish to stop here, reap the rewards and fuck the rest? Given, we shouldn't have to give everything to those in the future (if everyone did that, no-one would EVER actually get to enjoy their wealth.) but a few depressions here and there aren't so bad if it helps those who come later.

Inherent Nature

Imagine that you at 16 meet your daughter from the future, and she informs you that 20 years from now you are going to be a great inventor and charismatic leader. It is obvious enough that she would treat you as her father, and as said great leader, and that you would treat her as your daughter- Even though you share no history with her, nor do you have any achievements at said time. IE, the merit held by a great inventor/ect. is not born from the achievement but is instead a inherent attribute. Similarly, bonds of friendship and family are not built upon actions but upon inherent traits.
Many would argue that the past persona isn't relevant to the future one, due to lacking the experience that he will receive in the future. That would surmise that the person is unimportant and his experience is what matters. However, this runs afoul of a peculiar fact- that many people try the same things, but very few get results. If experience were all that mattered, then the schools that we funneled absurd amounts of money into would succeed, everyone who came out of a university would have equivalent results in the field, and people like Steve Jobs could be output like clockwork. In truth, we find great thinkers who dropped out of high school and incompetent buffoons who have a phd.

We live in a 4 dimensional world- A achievement in the future is no less meaningful than a achievement in Russia. As such, the only objective reason to withhold proper respect for a great inventor of the future is lack of information. At this point though we run afoul of quantum physics- from Schrodinger's Cat we know that any unknown state can be accurately depicted as a superposition of all of its possible states, and as such, a probabilistic cloud. However, this effect need not only be applied forward in time. Any point in history can be framed as a point within a giant tree, a series of parallel time-lines based on the various choices made by the universe. So, to loop backwards, we can say that anyone who CAN make a great invention should receive the same respect as someone who DOES make a great invention. On one hand this seems intuitive, but it also seems demeaning to the accomplishments themselves- This need not be the case however, if the accomplishment itself is given proper respect for itself. A gymnast who achieves a performance that she can only pull off once in a hundred tries feels proud OF HER PERFORMANCE, and rightfully so, because that block of space time is special, a precious existence. IE great achievements can make a better universe, even though they do not improve the achievers. It is sheer folly to declare that Darwin was not a great thinker before he thought of evolution, or would not have been a great thinker had he not thought of evolution. Even so, the theory of evolution is, in itself, important.

That said, as a society, it becomes necessary to uplift not only the already successful but also those who are alike to the successful. It is sheer folly, that a person can spend 30 years of his life being considered by society as worthless trash, then, suddenly when that person becomes a multi-millionaire, society turns around and act like it thinks so highly of him. This methodology discards everything holy about wealth and respect, and turns society into a pitiful beggar who will scamper and bow to whoever has power at the moment. In the past, nobles were known to execute enemy knights who would not fight for their own side, even if those knights sided with the very nobility that won the war. The behavior shown by modern society is unbefitting to a virtuous entity. Its methods are designed to empower the society of the moment. It does not serve its people (except those with power, and those with resources.) nor does it lead to a superior future. It panders to those with current power, disregarding the difficulty it lends to their peers or the pain it brings to others. It is a system purely focused on the present.
Of course, that is the expected nature of any system in which status can move quickly. When those with status are always in fear of losing their status, and those without status are always dreaming of receiving it, it means that their value is being judged only in terms of immediate environment. (Note that in America's recent history, extremely rich people and important scientists have been reduced to poverty (bank failure, farm destruction, lots of ways esp in the great depression.) and beloved, successful politicians have been rewritten into vile fiends (Warren Harding))

Others suggest handing out love to all. This sounds good until you realize that the system values a rapist thug on the same level as a olympic gold medalist. IE- in any system of value there must be some method of discrimination. Anything else is just avoiding the question or declaring morality moot. So, ruling out capitalism and communism, one might ask what is left- This forgets that before either system was created we used many other systems. Status can easily be based on character. In the past, this was judged based on how well people could adhere to various rituals and based on lineage. In the modern day we can do better. IQ of course, and other testable personality traits, but that doesn't go far enough. Thus, we must go into the art of character judging. This is, unfortunately, not straightforward. If you just go out and pinpoint people who are like-able and seem cool, you'll end up with a bunch of machiavellian scum. What you can do, is take people who do well in some field (like people who can play a game really well, or can discuss complicated subjects) and equate it to all other fields. Achievements occur when a threshold of power is applied to a measured field. In our modern credential based society, getting even one achievement can take as long as 20 years. This is because we measure a very small range of endeavours- specifically, tasks that have direct relevance to the present. If we expand this range to include irrelevant activities that are equally difficult, we can encompass millions of people who would otherwise fall off the radar. Fortunately, even if we cannot pin G down well, it still exists. People who hold weight in one field will also succeed in a wide range of other fields.



In a ideal nation, the people within should be patriotic. They should love their country because it is good. However, a country is its people- IE, for a patriot, it is not about simply loving a system, but about loving the RESULTS of the system. A successful system, is then one that causes the individuals composing it to be people with value.
So, what then is a valuable person? One need only look at the meaning of value- A valuable person is joyous, glorious, knowledgeable, understanding, powerful and secure. Namely, a beautiful and intelligent girl who is kidnapped at a young age and forced into a prostitution ring is not a valuable individual. She is not joyful, she is not glorious, she knows nothing, she understands nothing, she has no power and is not secure. Such a person should not exist- EVEN THOUGH, by definition, she is a good person.

So I ask, what does America offer? The much proffered slogan is that of freedom, but what does it mean? Are the doctors free, while they treat patients that caused their own injuries and could not in their wildest dreams afford the health care they receive if they had to spend their own money? Are the landlords free, while they rent to occupants they know will trash their homes? Are the teachers free when they bow down to the government in order to receive a job, and the resulting food and housing for themselves and their children? Are the taxpayers free while half their work goes to support a government that they did not create and do not condone? Are the children free when they are forced to go through their rituals for the sake of the public and their desires? Can someone be called free when so many of his actions serve only the purposes of others?
Some would say America is free because everyone has a say in the government. What then of those who do not support anything proffered by either party? Or of those who desire aspects of each party? A vote cast into the abyss of third parties is merely laughed at, whilst a vote given to either party can often be as harmful as beneficial- It's a false choice. There is no answer.

Others would say that America is free because everyone has opportunity. Here, one must take a second look at the meaning of opportunity- that, in the world today only so many people can succeed. One person's success is another person's failure. In a natural economy, this causes the best and most able to defeat those around them, and claim the reins of power for themselves. IE within a natural economy, very few people have opportunity. In order to convert this into a economy wherein everyone has opportunity, you must deny the natural elites the tools that they use to achieve their status. This reduces economics to a simple roulette in disguise. If not by merit, victory must be achieved by luck. Is freedom then, equal opportunity? Is it so frivolous that we can take two people, choose one at random and have him be a master and the other a slave, and declare them both free, due to their level playing field? In essence, a free environment is a fatalistic one, that those who are superior will be superior and, by definition, those who are inferior will be inferior.

Status is, by its nature, relative. By declaring one person better than the other, you also declare the other person inferior to the first. This happens many times, creating the stratification known as class. In a ideal nation, one expects even their worst criminals to be superior to the denizens of other nations, or at least to easily outclass those nation's criminals. As such, a patriotic individual can love his entire people, even while noting that the rapist is inferior to the scientist. In essence, what we need to do is not to eliminate status, but to acknowledge it. Each person should know his place, and should love his place. People should not be exploited because they are weak, nor because they are strong. They should understand their power level, and live harmoniously with their society.

How can this be achieved? Via true freedom- wherein everyone is given enough money to live off of (to include children), in which the nation acknowledges that each person is a part of IT's plan, such that they are all valuable. People who do not have to work if they don't want to, people who are beholden to no-one, that is a free people. However, what is also necessary is not just that people are not forced to take actions, but that they are allowed to fulfill their own wishes. This means, that society must provide a economy wherein people can seek jobs and grant them without foreign interference.

It can be stated that in such an environment, one subgroup could out-compete and destroy another. The evolutionarily superior group will take over in any natural environment- Evolution is, however, not morality. It is not even power. It is only a measure of security within the current frame. As such, a free people, should not be beholden to evolution either. One might expect that the requirements for the above destroy the necessities below. However, this is unneeded. Simply put, people born into this world, do not choose to enter it. They are forced in. By their nature, they force others out. IE, the decision of whether a person should live in a nation, is by its nature, not a free one. A person who only reproduces, forces all the people in the future to follow his will. IE, by doing a evolutionarily superior tactic, you perform violence on society. As such, the evolution of a society must be decided by that society.

However, this would seem rather unfree- Once again it need not be. If a society is not built upon a cross-section of humanity, but is instead designed for a particular populace, everyone within can share in society's dream. Better yet, given appropriate controls for immigration and enough different societies, people can simply move to a society that supports them. IE true freedom is only achievable in harmony with one's nation.

As such, society should be designed, such that everyone is respected as part of the system, wherein anyone can show his true form and be seen within it, and such that power is routed so as to achieve the future dreamed of by that society. Functional actions should not be confused with moral actions. A person who cannot exhibit any use-able skill, but can achieve feats impossible for anyone else, should receive equivalent respect to a great ceo/inventor. He should not, however, receive giant research grants and a business to run.
Note that respect is not just some piddling thing that can be created via ceremonies. Respect is not about fulfilling rituals. It's valuing a person. It's caring about them- not just empathizing with their pain, but in loving their joy. Looking at it that way, it becomes obvious that such a person would not be thrown out of his home and left to starve, nor denied a fitting job, even if it cost society overall.
(even here, such a society does not need to be expensive. 7,000 per person per year would cover all their expenses, and an additional 3,000 per person per year would more than handle military and miscellaneous expenses. that's a little under a fourth of the gdp, and much smaller than the current government. All we really would have to do is drop social security and medicare and distribute the wealth within evenly.)

The Nature of Diversity

In the modern age we receive all sorts of blessings from diversity. While jews teach us to be objective in stories like Atlas Shrugged and Firefly, the Japanese supply us stories that teach us of values and heart, such as Code Geass and Nanoha. With the power supplied by jewish ideas and the purpose ascribed from Japanese ideas, we take the concepts learned from white games such as Heroes 5 or Magic and use them to transform power into results. Diversity isn't just derived from genetics though: just watch Harry Potter in a room air-conditioned by German science, with French made food to observe the power of Culture. Diversity is a valuable resource, and this is to be expected. After all, evolution itself is powered through diversity. Multi-cellular life, and sexual reproduction, the most important milestones in evolution's history, were both designed only to increase diversity.

So, knowing that diversity is a valuable resource, we must next ask just what is diversity and where does it come from. Diversity is not some mineral one can pull up from the earth, nor is it data which can be transmitted freely. It is a enumeration of modes of operation. IE, a diverse AI is one that can change tactics fluidly and come at a player from a multitude of directions. Similarly, if we as humans seek to be a diverse species we must be able to approach a given issue from a multitude of directions. The concept is not difficult- In a game of Megaman, each boss is weak against one weapon and will almost certainly lose if that weapon is used against him. As such sticking to your most powerful weapon will almost certainly lead to defeat, whilst randomly pounding him with a variety of weapons, then letting the one weapon that actually works handle the rest, (even if that weapon is by all standard measurements pathetic) is a far superior tactic. So, as to where it comes from- Genotypes and/or Phenotypes. By definition. It can be expected that it will be impossible to predict all important events over the next 100 years. As such, the only way to have a ideal society built around handling whatever event chain does occur, is to have a ideal society pre-built for each possible time-line. So we back off again, toward the question of just what makes a society.

The answer here is that a society is built upon people living their way of life based on their philosophy. It is to be expected, a computer program that never runs may as well not exist. As such, in order to have the program, one must supply it with the necessary CPU cycles. In the case of societies, it means that the people in it must have control over where they spend their money, how they do their work, how they treat their criminals- IE their government. Diversity is only born from distributing power to multiple groups, not by holding power over multiple different groups. If a white, a black and a jew are forced to work together, they will each have their own interpretation of how the work should get done. As a result, they must come up with a new methodology. Note- A new methodology. Where once the same work would've been achieved in 3 different manners, it will now be completed in one particular manner, IE in a manner that is a compromise between the white, jew and black. This principle extends to national issues- IE if you start with a white, asian, jew, and a criminal X you will find the asian wants criminal punished, that the victim may enjoy having final justice over the perpetrator, the white simply wants to make sure he isn't the next victim, and the jew will want to overlook the crime, and pay the price of having criminals rather than hurting mr. X. Each of these approaches has their merits, and within their own nations would've been implemented into multiple competing systems. However, together the asian will insist that the criminal be punished and the jew will insist he get let off. In the end the criminal will be tortured (for instance, put into a jail cell where his "fellow" inmates will then rape and beat him) (thus making him less viable for civilian activity and more reliant on crime as a way of life) and then released back into the public (with maybe a short delay in order to placate the white.) The asian will not have his justice, the white will not have his safety, nor will the jew get his warmth and love. NO-ONE wins.

It is not unexpected, that if you place two groups in one sphere, there will be one group after a period of time. Genotypes will be weeded out through interbreeding, or by one group out competing the other. Phenotypes will be similarly conglomerated through the natural human processes of tribalism and conformism. (Humans are naturally opposed on an emotional level to anyone who disagrees with them. For similar reasons we naturally fear going against societal norms or holding beliefs that no-one else is willing to recognize.) So one must ask, how we obtained the diversity we enjoy today in the first place. The answer turns out to be physical barriers. Blacks exist because of the Sahara. Asians exist because of the Himalayas . British and Germans have a separate existence because of the English Channel, and other environmental factors. For every genotype or phenotype their is some physical barrier that separates them. Of course with modern technology, these barriers are virtually moot. Those that aren't (such as African disease barriers that whites cannot go through.) will be overturned as technology improves. As such we are steadily moving into 1 shared sphere of influence.

In order to hold onto our cherished diversity, it is thus necessary to create new virtual barriers in lieu of the old ones. It is to be expected that we do not want to overturn the very benefits that we receive from diversity, by cutting off trade, or taking other economic action or by cutting off information flow between groups. That would be like trying to stop global warming by reducing carbon emissions. As such it is better to preserve the barriers we can preserve- IE the governmental ones. Controlling immigration and not giving votes to foreigners is the most obvious application thereof. However, a less obvious one is this- That once two cultures come into conflict, there are only two options: Eliminate one culture or end the conflict. Understand this, that conflict is not only carried out through war. People constantly try to destroy each-other through economics, politics or even sheer reproduction. To end the conflict, each of these issues must also be addressed. Splitting the two groups into two governments, is the most viable answer that addresses these issues- Economics is pacified, since services must be accomplished by the group within its own nation, and since the nation gets a monopoly on its own land and resources. Politics is handled since the voters of one nation cannot effect the citizens of the other nation. Reproduction is settled, since the nations are mono-genetic and mono-phenotic. That said, it is to be expected that between a random X and Y either X will be significantly larger than Y or the reverse. As such, when two nations are split, this almost always means that one small nation is succeeding from the larger whole.

It is to be expected that even with careful border control and political rules, foreign influences will penetrate any group. Since these existences are all geometric (or, another way to put it, is that any non-geometric process will quickly be swamped by exterior forces, only geometric existences can be seen on a four dimensional stage. Anything else, no matter how large in the third dimension, is too small for the naked mind.) the rate of expansion will determine group size in the end. What this means is that the only way to sustain a perpetually diverse environment, the people within the environment must be periodically sorted into their respective groups. The only viable way to achieve this is a right to succession. Larger groups must not be allowed to use force to overpower smaller groups that wish only to be left alone- Even if the smaller group resides within the territory of the larger group. So long as the physical difficulties of supplying the smaller group their required land, resources and military defense can be addressed, nations should slide to their smallest available size.